Southeastern Franchise: Extension granted for minimum 18 months

[brad465]

That's a decade off at best. Networkers will never last that long - though the way it's going the Dft will try it...

They're going to have to last almost that length if a new fleet order was not made until late 2021, as a complete fleet replacement would be unlikely to be complete before the end of 2025. A serious interior fix up will help then it's a question of maintaining the traction equipment long enough. While no two train classes are the same, if it was 2030 before they were all gone they wouldn't be the oldest EMUs in terms of operating life.

 

[Class 170101]

Well, not quite. You would just need to remove all the retail space and probably need to build some extra 'internals' through the medium of a giant conservatory over parts of the taxi area. Charing Cross doesn't necessarily need shed loads of waiting space not least because people who use it are commuters, not long distance travellers e.g. Euston who need waiting facilities, cafes etc.

To a point yes but when it goes wrong is when the holding space becomes essential.

 

[Doomotron]

The majority of them have new traction equipment.

The upgrade to Hitachi equipment hasn't worked, they're only marginally more reliable than the other ones, and neither are anywhere near being reliable.

 

[365 Networker]

The upgrade to Hitachi equipment hasn't worked, they're only marginally more reliable than the other ones, and neither are anywhere near being reliable.

That’s strange, as the 365s (which have similar traction packages) are very reliable. Perhaps it’s because they are not quite as old.

 

[brad465]

That’s strange, as the 365s (which have similar traction packages) are very reliable. Perhaps it’s because they are not quite as old.

Only by 1-3 years. The variation on interior standard must be down to 465s operating in areas more prone to anti-social behaviour. Have the 365s been less intensively used than 465s perhaps?

 

[paul1609]

Well, not quite. You would just need to remove all the retail space and probably need to build some extra 'internals' through the medium of a giant conservatory over parts of the taxi area. Charing Cross doesn't necessarily need shed loads of waiting space not least because people who use it are commuters, not long distance travellers e.g. Euston who need waiting facilities, cafes etc.

Thats not really true, Charing Cross is the Central London Terminus for Kent and parts of East Sussex. Off Peak a lot of the customers are travelling to places like Hastings and Ramsgate that have journey times of 1 1/2 to 2 hours thats Doncaster or Yorkish in ECML equivalent terms.
As a TOC Southeastern are in terms of passenger income slightly bigger than LNER in terms of Revenue or about 6 times bigger in passenger numbers

 

[Roast Veg]

Also in times of disruption CHX can fill its standing area very fast.

 

[365 Networker]

Have the 365s been less intensively used than 465s perhaps?

Not really, until around 2018/19 they were used very intensively on both peak and off-peak services. They only operate a limited number of services now, with most services provided by the Thames Link 700s.

 

[Horizon22]

I guess you would consider extending out over the Thames in the way Blackfriars is to be a non-starter then?

Very much a non-starter

Well, not quite. You would just need to remove all the retail space and probably need to build some extra 'internals' through the medium of a giant conservatory over parts of the taxi area. Charing Cross doesn't necessarily need shed loads of waiting space not least because people who use it are commuters, not long distance travellers e.g. Euston who need waiting facilities, cafes etc.

Charing Cross could probably be built to have a balcony alongside the hotel side, but that's quite a stretch. During disruption the station concourse can get full up very quickly if trains aren't boarding and generally people don't wait around much anyway. However there are services to Ramsgate / Hastings which take 2+ hours, so there are some long-distance leisure travellers although of course not to the same level as Euston / Paddington etc.

Knocking through into the WHSmith / seats / help point would be the only real way to extend P5-6. Otherwise people have to accept Charing Cross is completely at, if not over capacity

As a TOC Southeastern are in terms of passenger income slightly bigger than LNER in terms of Revenue or about 6 times bigger in passenger numbers

Correct, but this is massively skewed towards peak commuter revenue & numbers in SE versus LNER.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Out of interest, did the Thameslink improvements not release any capacity at CHX or CST? My memory is now a bit hazy on how the frequencies on the various lines out of London Bridge have changed since Thameslink was completed, but if I recall correctly, Thameslink was supposed to go from 8tph to 20-24tph through the core. That must surely have made quite a difference as that looks like quite a few tph removed from the other lines?

I'm a bit hazy now on how frequencies on different lines out of London Bridge compare from before and after the Thameslink works, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any massive improvements, other than the Sidcup line going from (I think) 4tph to 6tph.

 

[brad465]

Out of interest, did the Thameslink improvements not release any capacity at CHX or CST? My memory is now a bit hazy on how the frequencies on the various lines out of London Bridge have changed since Thameslink was completed, but if I recall correctly, Thameslink was supposed to go from 8tph to 20-24tph through the core. That must surely have made quite a difference as that looks like quite a few tph removed from the other lines?

I'm a bit hazy now on how frequencies on different lines out of London Bridge compare from before and after the Thameslink works, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any massive improvements, other than the Sidcup line going from (I think) 4tph to 6tph.

The only direct impact on CHX relief was taking the CHX-Gillingham service into Thameslink control to Rainham (who by some sources on the forum may want to let it go when Windmill Bridge Jct upgrades are completed). The 2tph paths gained into CHX were effectively given to the Sidcup line, who's 6tph includes 4tph into CHX.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only direct impact on CHX relief was taking the CHX-Gillingham service into Thameslink control to Rainham (who by some sources on the forum may want to let it go when Windmill Bridge Jct upgrades are completed). The 2tph paths gained into CHX were effectively given to the Sidcup line, who's 6tph includes 4tph into CHX.

I don't think that's quite correct regarding the Gillingham service: The change there would have freed up capacity at Cannon Street, not Charing Cross. That's because the half-hourly CHX-Lewisham-Woolwich line service still runs. It just terminates at Dartford rarther than Gillingham. When the Rainham Thameslink service was introduced, the Greenwich-Woolwich line went down from 6pth to 4tph to Cannon Street, with the old Cannon Street-Dartford service having been effectively replaced by the Thameslink Rainham service.

But in my mind that still begs the question, what happened to all the paths that were taken over by Thameslink trains? The Thameslink Rainham service accounts for 2tph into Cannon Street, but the Thameslink frequency increased by far more than 2tph. Did none of that free any capacity at CHX?

 

[JonathanH]

But in my mind that still begs the question, what happened to all the paths that were taken over by Thameslink trains? The Thameslink Rainham service accounts for 2tph into Cannon Street, but the Thameslink frequency increased by far more than 2tph. Did none of that free any capacity at CHX?

There were very few peak paths through London Bridge used by Thameslink as they couldn't be accommodated in the Charing Cross timetable (it all crossed on the flat) so it really had no impact.

 

[Horizon22]

Out of interest, did the Thameslink improvements not release any capacity at CHX or CST? My memory is now a bit hazy on how the frequencies on the various lines out of London Bridge have changed since Thameslink was completed, but if I recall correctly, Thameslink was supposed to go from 8tph to 20-24tph through the core. That must surely have made quite a difference as that looks like quite a few tph removed from the other lines?

I'm a bit hazy now on how frequencies on different lines out of London Bridge compare from before and after the Thameslink works, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any massive improvements, other than the Sidcup line going from (I think) 4tph to 6tph.

Yes the Charing Cross fast service to Gillingham (via North Kent) was removed, but effectively the semi fast Gravesend service via Sidcup has replaced it.

The Thameslink has indeed increased a lot more, but not on that side. It's mainly Horsham / East Grinstead / Littlehampton which are old Southern services, not Southeastern. Let's not forget Rainham was a bit of a DfT afterthought as they realised they couldn't get more paths through Windmill Bridge Junction / East Croydon. Hence the crossing moves towards Deptford - which ironically were supposed to be removed all together.

 

[swt_passenger]

Out of interest, did the Thameslink improvements not release any capacity at CHX or CST? My memory is now a bit hazy on how the frequencies on the various lines out of London Bridge have changed since Thameslink was completed, but if I recall correctly, Thameslink was supposed to go from 8tph to 20-24tph through the core. That must surely have made quite a difference as that looks like quite a few tph removed from the other lines?

I'm a bit hazy now on how frequencies on different lines out of London Bridge compare from before and after the Thameslink works, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any massive improvements, other than the Sidcup line going from (I think) 4tph to 6tph.

There was a detailed analysis of the "before and after" Thameslink situation back in the South London RUS of 2008. (Haven't found a copy online.)

A very quick summary is that the number of trains approaching London Bridge in the morning peak in the late 2000s was, (in rounded figures) a total of about 85 paths, lets say 30 tph to Charing Cross (not all called), 25 tph to Cannon St, 30 tph to London Bridge bays, and 0 to Thameslink.

After 10 years of disruption, the expected figures were going to total a very similar 86 paths, now split four ways, 28 tph to Charing Cross (all calling), 20 tph to Cannon St (slight reduction), 20 tph to London Bridge bays (significant reduction) and 18 to Thameslink (Blackfriars).

So by far the main reduction intended was to terminating services (almost all Southern). But while all this was happening there was also the diversion of SN stopping services onto the LO ELL, which I don't think has been mentioned.

Just to emphasise those numbers are not necessarily what finally happened, but indicative of the before and after 'share out'...

 

[Horizon22]

Here's what Wikipedia says regarding routes. As you can see the vast majority are ex-Southern services. Note that 9&10 aren't running (nor expected to in short/medium-term)

Thameslink Programme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KingJ]

There was a detailed analysis of the "before and after" Thameslink situation back in the South London RUS of 2008. (Haven't found a copy online.)

A copy is available via the Internet Archive, although it might take a few minutes to load.

 

[swt_passenger]

A copy is available via the Internet Archive, although it might take a few minutes to load.

Thanks for digging that out for everyone’s benefit...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes I was thinking about it this morning and realised I was being silly. Of course, the London Bridge rebuild removed several terminating platforms - thereby reducing capacity for terminating Southern trains, with the space being given over to the new dedicated Thameslink platforms plus more Charing Cross line platforms. The new Charing Cross platforms improved reliability for CHX trains and allow all CHX trains to call at London Bridge, while the Thameslink platforms - for the most part - absorb the lost terminating Southern capacity. So to a good approximation, no new capacity on the lines East out of London Bridge, just much better reliability, plus quite a few trains that used to terminate at LBG now carry on through the Thameslink core. Hence no significant capacity change for either CHX or CST.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes I was thinking about it this morning and realised I was being silly. Of course, the London Bridge rebuild removed several terminating platforms - thereby reducing capacity for terminating Southern trains, with the space being given over to the new dedicated Thameslink platforms plus more Charing Cross line platforms. The new Charing Cross platforms improved reliability for CHX trains and allow all CHX trains to call at London Bridge, while the Thameslink platforms - for the most part - absorb the lost terminating Southern capacity. So to a good approximation, no new capacity on the lines East out of London Bridge, just much better reliability, plus quite a few trains that used to terminate at LBG now carry on through the Thameslink core. Hence no significant capacity change for either CHX or CST.

It adds a bit more flexibility too. Both for passengers (additional journey options) and operationally for Southeastern (options to turn around late running services at London Bridge in service recovery)

 

[Mikey C]

Yes the Charing Cross fast service to Gillingham (via North Kent) was removed, but effectively the semi fast Gravesend service via Sidcup has replaced it.

The Thameslink has indeed increased a lot more, but not on that side. It's mainly Horsham / East Grinstead / Littlehampton which are old Southern services, not Southeastern. Let's not forget Rainham was a bit of a DfT afterthought as they realised they couldn't get more paths through Windmill Bridge Junction / East Croydon. Hence the crossing moves towards Deptford - which ironically were supposed to be removed all together.

In terms of the London Bridge/CHX side of things though, the truncated stopper Dartford to CHX via North Kent is effectively operating the exact same path as the old Gillingham service

 

[Metal_gee_man]

What extra capacity (eventually) at CHX will be created when the Abbey Wood #PurpleTrain #ElizabethLine services start?

 

[swt_passenger]

What extra capacity (eventually) at CHX will be created when the Abbey Wood #PurpleTrain #ElizabethLine services start?

Nothing at all in terms of trains. The Abbey Wood leg of Crossrail is completely independent of Southeastern services, but there are no services to Charing Cross from that part of the SE network anyway, since the Thameslink track alterations?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nothing at all in terms of trains. The Abbey Wood leg of Crossrail is completely independent of Southeastern services, but there are no services to Charing Cross from that part of the SE network anyway, since the Thameslink track alterations?

That requires glancing but a mere one post further up from the one you were replying to

In terms of the London Bridge/CHX side of things though, the truncated stopper Dartford to CHX via North Kent is effectively operating the exact same path as the old Gillingham service

You are correct about Crossrail making no difference at all though.

 

[Mikey C]

What extra capacity (eventually) at CHX will be created when the Abbey Wood #PurpleTrain #ElizabethLine services start?

None, though you'd assume that there would be significant relief for passengers further in on the Greenwich Line, with many passengers from Woolwich outwards switching to the new service

There may be other benefits too, with passengers on other lines who work in say Canary Wharf taking the bus to Abbey Road rather than say switching the DLR at Lewisham

 

[hkstudent]

None, though you'd assume that there would be significant relief for passengers further in on the Greenwich Line, with many passengers from Woolwich outwards switching to the new service

There may be other benefits too, with passengers on other lines who work in say Canary Wharf taking the bus to Abbey Road rather than say switching the DLR at Lewisham

That is correct. It was assumed that Elizabeth Line will be fully seated at Abbey Wood Station by taking a lot of North Kent Line interchange passengers.
By doing so, the capacity issue at Charlton - Deptford section would be relieved.

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to stick to the Southeastern franchise please; to discuss other franchises it's better to create a new thread (or use an existing one, if one exists). You are welcome to link any such thread from here if it's related.

Also if anyone has an idea/suggestion that isn't part of any current proposals, please create a new thread, or use an existing one, in the appropriate forum section please.

Thanks

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Reality is that having just direct awarded and now going into a management contract, now is the time at least for the Government as purse-string-holders to bang out some rolling stock. No idea how they could achieve it, but given 387s aren't running at 110mph on the LNE they could do a cascade.

Without turning this into a 'Speculative Ideas', at the very least:
- Re-activate the 365s for Great Northern [Net GN plus 76 vehicles]
- Return the 377s from Southeastern to Southern [Net SE minus 100 vehicles, Southern plus 100 vehicles]
- Move the Southeastern 375/3s to Southern [Net SE minus 30 vehicles, Southern plus 130 vehicles cumulative]
- Move the Greater Anglia 379s to Great Northern/LNER for Kings Lynn and express Peterborough services [net GN plus 196 vehicles]
- Move the GN and c2c 387s to Southeastern [Net GN plus 80 vehicles, Net SE plus 40 vehicles]
- Due to the Cambridge stopping services then being able to be formed of 365 or 379 (SDO) vehicles, sub-lease some 700s to Southeastern on a daily basis (as Orpington drivers sign them) for peak services between Beckenham & Blackfriars and Orpington & Victoria, freeing up 465s and 466s for the wider Metro network.

This would be a reasonably quick methodology at least, with the 10 375/3s replaced with an equivalent 10 387s, but the 387s more likely to work on routes such as Maidstone East and Tunbridge Wells; getting rid of any remaining 465 work on the Main Lines and what not. You then can use the 707s for Metro work (Woolwich, Hayes) and then take some Networkers out for overhaul to allow them to be fixed up properly and then run in 8s (Victoria to Dartford), 10s and as many 12s as possible.

 

[ScotGG]

That is correct. It was assumed that Elizabeth Line will be fully seated at Abbey Wood Station by taking a lot of North Kent Line interchange passengers.
By doing so, the capacity issue at Charlton - Deptford section would be relieved.

That was the thinking but over the past decade planned (and current) housing has meant there can be no reduction in capacity or paths on the Woolwich line if that was the plan. Charlton will now see 10,000 homes, That's up hugely from planned numbers a decade ago. Greenwich homes has doubled to 20,000+ and not all will use the Jubilee. Deptford is similar.

Then there's getting all those people from Kent (and the 20,000 homes Bexley plan and then many thousands more in Dartford) to Abbey Wood from the east.

I'm very dubious many using other Dartford lines within London will switch to crossrail. Any time advantage from Abbey Wood compared to taking a train from Bexleyheath or Welling to Lewisham then DLR to Canary Wharf (or train to the City) is lost by needing to take a bus to Abbey Wood. Why do it? As a long term resident it makes no sense to me. Buses are much less reliable. From Welling there isn't even a direct bus. Bexleyheath buses get stuck at roundabout on Brampton Road queues too often. Kidbrooke and Eltham = no chance. As for the Sidcup line that's even more unlikely.

Crossrail will only directly benefit the Woolwich line, but as stated many new homes past Woolwich in Charlton, Greenwich and Deptford mean no capacity reduction is possible mid term.

I'm not sure the DfT realise this when planning the franchise.

 

[ScotGG]

Reality is that having just direct awarded and now going into a management contract, now is the time at least for the Government as purse-string-holders to bang out some rolling stock. No idea how they could achieve it, but given 387s aren't running at 110mph on the LNE they could do a cascade.

Without turning this into a 'Speculative Ideas', at the very least:
- Re-activate the 365s for Great Northern [Net GN plus 76 vehicles]
- Return the 377s from Southeastern to Southern [Net SE minus 100 vehicles, Southern plus 100 vehicles]
- Move the Southeastern 375/3s to Southern [Net SE minus 30 vehicles, Southern plus 130 vehicles cumulative]
- Move the Greater Anglia 379s to Great Northern/LNER for Kings Lynn and express Peterborough services [net GN plus 196 vehicles]
- Move the GN and c2c 387s to Southeastern [Net GN plus 80 vehicles, Net SE plus 40 vehicles]
- Due to the Cambridge stopping services then being able to be formed of 365 or 379 (SDO) vehicles, sub-lease some 700s to Southeastern on a daily basis (as Orpington drivers sign them) for peak services between Beckenham & Blackfriars and Orpington & Victoria, freeing up 465s and 466s for the wider Metro network.

This would be a reasonably quick methodology at least, with the 10 375/3s replaced with an equivalent 10 387s, but the 387s more likely to work on routes such as Maidstone East and Tunbridge Wells; getting rid of any remaining 465 work on the Main Lines and what not. You then can use the 707s for Metro work (Woolwich, Hayes) and then take some Networkers out for overhaul to allow them to be fixed up properly and then run in 8s (Victoria to Dartford), 10s and as many 12s as possible.

Ultimately you still have many Networkers on Metro routes limiting 12-car running unless they have SDO installed - and apparently that's a lot of hassle. Plus numerous cab ends taking up space. Crossrail is not going to alleviate much of the metro network so that 12-car need is there over next few years.